Saturday, 25 December 2010

Advisers: Who should you trust with your money?


ADVANCED INVESTING

Advisers: Who should you trust with your money?

Investor Education Fund

"There are no requirements for managing billions of dollars, but before somebody can trim your sideburns, he or she has to pass some sort of test. Given the record of the average fund manager over the last decade, maybe it should be the other way around." – Peter Lynch, Beating the Street

How do you find a good adviser?
Although Peter Lynch’s comment is focused on fund management, the minimum requirements to become a licensed adviser are easier to get than in some other professions that have much less of an impact on your long-term well-being. In Canada, there are many people that are eager to manage your money but it can be difficult to find somebody that will do it well.
The best ones don’t necessarily drive posh cars, wear expensive suits, or have big corner offices. But they do share these three characteristics:
  • superior service
  • consistent returns and with reasonable risk
  • a focus on your success first, before their own.
Unfortunately, too often you can only learn how an adviser measures up after you have entrusted your money to them. There is no common rating system that lets you sort out the good advisers from everybody else. But there are three things you can -- and should – check before you choose an adviser:
  • Qualifications
  • Experience
  • Performance
After all, it’s your money that’s on the line -- not theirs. Make sure you’re putting it into the right hands.
1. Assessing an adviser’s qualifications
The fact that an adviser has the basic qualifications to work in the industry will not tell you very much about their skill level. To register as an adviser, he or she only has to meet the bare minimum qualifications to operate in the industry. So when you look at qualifications, look beyond the minimum.
What to look for:
  • Check that the adviser and their firm are registered and in good standing with industry regulators. Check now.
  • Find out if the adviser has any additional qualifications, such as chartered financial analyst or chartered accountant. It takes considerable work and expertise to achieve these and other professional accreditations. This means they can offer added insight and a richer perspective to you.
  • See if the adviser has made a commitment to ongoing professional development and skills development. A person who is committed to continuous learning will more likely serve you as a valued adviser, and not just sell you products.
2. Assessing an adviser’s experience
Merely having experience in the industry does not make someone an excellent adviser. Experience may help an adviser understand and assess financial markets, but it does not guarantee the right focus on client returns. Nor does it necessarily teach advisers to focus on the long-term value of protecting their clients from the intense industry pressure to generate commissions.
The best advisers have learned, through experience, to make sure that costs are reasonable; that returns are fair; that recommended strategies and products are among the best available; and that clients feel comfortable and confident through good markets and bad.
What to look for:
Find out how long the adviser has been working in the industry and how long they have been working for this specific company. Learn about their philosophy and their company's investing philosophy.
Check that the adviser works with a broad range of products, not just one or two specialties, so they can help you find the right investments for your stage in life.
Interview a number of advisers before you choose one and ask them about their experience and investment philosophy. For instance, ask them what lessons they have learned over the years, and what they do differently today than they did five years ago (or when they started in the business). You can have a very interesting conversation with someone if you ask them about mistakes they have made and what they learned from them!
3. Assessing an adviser’s performance
It takes a long-term view and considerable emotional maturity for an adviser to balance making money for themselves with fair returns for their clients. As we will explore in future articles, most advisers are paid by commission -- and that commission often brings an incentive to make certain decisions.
The best advisers focus on returns rather than commissions. They understand the effects of fees and capital losses on client returns. They also know how to prepare clients for the volatility of financial markets.
Unfortunately, this type of adviser is less common than you think and takes a concerted effort to find. Make sure you:
  • Take the time to interview advisers to uncover their philosophy, their commitment to their profession, and the type of service that they will provide to you.
  • Make it clear to your adviser that you will monitor the relationship based on the relative performance of your portfolio against a reasonable benchmark.
Investors need to demand low-cost and market-comparable performance from their investments. This happens far too rarely today – and investors need to change this.
What to look for:
  • Make sure the adviser has good references and a demonstrated track record.
  • Check how the adviser has performed in both up and down markets.
  • Ask how long they have worked with most of their clients. Talk to at least three clients the adviser has worked with for five years or more.
  • Talk about how the adviser is paid. The best situation is where you and the adviser profit or lose together. Next best is an advisor who is paid to provide advice, but has no financial stake in the decisions you make. Neither of these are very common as the commissioned sales model is standard in the industry.
The problem with commission selling
One of the biggest enemies of long-term returns are fees. Commission selling can become problematic when it comes to fees because some of the most popular products are the most expensive for consumer because they are so lucrative for the salesperson.
For example, Canadian equity mutual funds with fees of approximately 2.5% are some of the most popular investment products in Canada. If these funds regularly provided returns that outpaced the Canadian equity market over the long-run, this strategy would make sense. However, this usually isn’t the case- only a handful of funds have outpaced the market consistently over the long run, despite the 1000s of funds (literally!) that are available.
Despite the fact that most mutual funds trail the markets in terms of return, you don’t often see full service brokers that recommend investing in an exchange-traded fund when a similar mutual fund is available. The adviser needs to get paid, and the mutual funds offer higher fees- even if it means generally below market returns for you. This is one example of how commissions create incentives for advisers to do questionable things for your portfolio.
Remember: advisers are important- but they can’t do it all
Investors need to be aware of what their advisers can and can’t do. An adviser can be great at some things, such as:
  • adding value with access to good research
  • offering tools and advice regarding asset allocation
  • helping you maintain investing discipline and focus.
In the early stages of a relationship they can help you through all of the documentation to define your investment type and asset allocation. They can help you access proven, low-cost managed and index products and help you screen out much of the bad product.
However, investors need to watch their portfolio closely and put pressure on their advisers to keep fees in line with overall returns. After all, just because somebody is qualified to do a job, or has experience, does not mean that they will behave in a way that maximizes your investment return. So learn as much as you can about an adviser before you put your hard-earned money in their hands.

Building an income: Ming's story

CASE STUDIES
Building an income: Ming's story
Investor Education Fund
Published Tuesday, Mar. 31, 2009 10:20AM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Mar. 23, 2010 11:35AM EDT

With $20,000 extra to invest, Ming likes the idea of investing for income. But he doesn’t want to invest too conservatively. He hopes to retire within the next 10 years, and he wants to grow his savings without taking on too much risk.

Ming decides what to do: Ming sat down with his adviser, and together they created a portfolio that would balance income and growth. Here what they did with the money:

· Put $5,000 in a five-year, non-cashable Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC): Ming will get about $175 a year in interest from this investment, guaranteed.

· Put $5,000 in a 10-year government bond: He will get about $200 in interest each year from this investment, guaranteed.

· Put $10,000 in preferred shares: Ming hopes to get about $400 each year in dividends, paid as $100 once every three months. Here, there’s no guarantee. He plans to hold the stock for now so he won’t have to pay tax on any capital gains.

Result: Ming will get some of this extra income yearly, and some more often. Some of the money is guaranteed, and some of it is not. By putting about half of his money in non-guaranteed income investments (the preferred shares), he hopes to balance income with growth.

There are also certain tax benefits. The preferred shares pay dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than interest. That means Ming will be able to keep more of the income he makes from investing. He plans to reinvest this income so he can keep growing his savings until he retires.

How do I make or lose money on stocks?


How do I make money from stocks?
You make money in two ways:
  1. You sell when the price is higher than you paid.

    Example: Let’s say you buy a stock when the price is $10 a share. A year later the price goes up to $11 and you sell. You will make $1 on each share you own, minus fees or taxes.


  2. You get dividends.

    Example:

    Let’s say you bought 100 common shares of a company at the start of the year. At the end of the year, you get a dividend of 25 cents a share. That means you made $25 in dividends that year (100 shares x 25 cents = $25). Some years, you may get a higher dividend. Some years, you may get a lower dividend, or no dividend at all.

Tip: Before you buy a stock, ask these questions: Is this stock’s price likely to rise over time? Does the company pay dividends often?
How do I lose money from stocks?
  1. You sell when the price is lower than you paid.


    Example: Let’s say you buy a stock when the price is $10 a share. A year later, the price has dropped to $9. If you choose to sell then, you will lose $1 on each share you own. You’ll also have to pay fees for selling the stock.


    Tip: You don’t really lose money on your stock investment until you sell. You may decide to hold on to the stock and hope that its price will rise. There’s no way to tell for sure if the price will rise again or how soon. It could even fall lower. As an investor, you have to decide when you should sell. Or, get help from a registered adviser.

  2. The company whose stock you own goes out of business.


    This doesn’t happen often. But a company can go bankrupt if it can’t afford to pay its bills. Its stock will drop a lot in value and may even become worthless.
Remember: There is no sure thing in the stock market
For better results, learn as much as you can before you invest your hard-earned cash. You may also want to get professional advice.

Four ways investors go wrong

If you are one of those people who suffered heavy losses over the past decade, it was most likely due to one of the following four reasons:

1. Bad market timing. I fear that too often investors attempt to time the markets, which is extremely difficult even for professional money managers.

As I have pointed out many times over the years, it is one thing to identify trends but quite another to pinpoint when they will result in major market turns. Sometimes, the time lag can be many months or even years. Being on the wrong side of the market during that period can prove to be very costly.

2. Aggressive asset allocation. Although it has been repeatedly proven to be the most important single factor in investment performance, many investors fail to use the principles of asset allocation in constructing their portfolios. This frequently results in a higher level of risk than is appropriate [because investors tend to] overweight stocks and/or equity mutual funds and underweight fixed-income securities.

I have seen many cases where people in their sixties and seventies had equity weightings of more than 75% and then were stunned when they lost a lot of money in the market bust of 2008 and 2009. For most people, a disciplined asset-allocation approach is the first step to successful investing.

3. Flawed advice. I just read another study purporting to show that Canadians who use financial advisors are better off than those who don't. This one came from the Investment Funds Institute of Canada (IFIC), most of whose products are sold by advisors.

[According to the report,] households with an advisor had 68 per cent of their money in "market-sensitive" securities (equities and mutual funds) and 32% in "conservative" vehicles (term deposits, savings accounts, bonds).

Those who did not use an advisor were split almost equally—51 per cent market-sensitive to 49 per cent conservative. I suspect that a similar U.S. study would produce comparable results.

Financial advisors, like all other professionals, aren't perfect. Sometimes the guidance they offer simply isn’t appropriate, either because it is inconsistent with a person's objectives and risk tolerance or because it is motivated at least in part by commissions. So, it is always a good idea to ask questions and be sure you understand exactly what you're buying before taking the plunge.

4. Pure speculation. Some people like to gamble, pure and simple. I have always said that the place for that is a casino, not the stock market, but there are investors who can't resist. Occasionally, they make a big score. More often, they lose their stake.

Successful long-term investing requires patience and discipline. That may not seem exciting, but it will pay off over time and you won't end up sending me e-mails bemoaning your losses.

Gordon Pape is editor of the Canada Report.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/four-ways-investors-go-wrong/article1730868/

Who knew? Things investors wish they saw coming

Hindsight bias: The inclination to see events that have occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place.

That’s Wikipedia’s definition of a behavioural weakness we all have. We take credit for having seen something coming when we really didn’t (or at least our actions give no indication that we did). Investors are particularly susceptible to hindsight bias. So much so in fact, that a friend of mine suggested we start up a helpline to assist deluded portfolio managers who have convinced themselves they saw the tech wreck coming. She’s heard it too many times.

So in looking back at 2010, I’m going to focus on things that few people saw coming. I’m not talking about the obvious – the Leafs being bad or the Alouettes winning the Eastern Conference – but rather stuff that wasn’t even contemplated a year ago: LeBron James going from revered to despised, or curling emerging as a viewing highlight of the Vancouver Olympics. The stuff that prompts us to say, “Who knew?”

For instance, who knew Canada would continue to cruise along, seemingly immune to the troubles of its largest customer, the United States. And our residential and commercial real estate would be downright hot, while the market to the south was a sinkhole.

As for the U.S., who knew the government would go another year without showing any spending discipline, let alone austerity. Or that investors would continue to spend so much time listening to an institution that was discredited years ago, namely the U.S. Federal Reserve.

Who knew another year would go by without a plan to utilize one of Canada’s greatest resources – natural gas. I guess declining exports to the U.S. (they now have lots of gas, too) and environmental concerns about the oil sands weren’t enough of an incentive.

Who knew a major takeover (Potash Corp.) would get turned down after foreigners had effortlessly bought Alcan, Algoma, Anderson, ATI, Canadian Hunter, Cognos, Creo, Dofasco, Duvernay, Fairmont, Falconbridge, Four Seasons, Hudson’s Bay, Ipsco, Inco, Labatt, MacMillan Bloedel, Masonite and Newbridge, to name a few.

While most investors started the year worrying about rising interest rates, who knew bond yields would drop further (David Rosenberg, that’s who). In the face of the crises in Greece and Ireland, and a U.S. economy that was weak enough to require more quantitative easing, stock markets went up. And despite all the talk about the loonie’s strong fundamentals against the U.S. dollar, it remains where it was last January.

Who knew that after two excellent years in the markets, so many people would still hate stocks? Over the course of my career, I’ve never come across as many investors who are sitting on cash, making a huge bet again the market (and their own investment plan).

In the investment industry, who knew that Ned Goodman would sell out – to a bank, no less. Or that we’d have so many new exotic exchange-traded funds, including ones that play the spread between oil and gas, the volatility of the S&P 500 and the odds of “The Biebs” winning a Grammy.

Who knew the U.S. government would make money on its Citigroup investment, or that Government Motors (GM) would be one of the year’s hottest IPOs.

Who knew that Manulife would let another year pass without rebuilding the confidence of the investment community? Or that making women’s bums look good would be worth 55 times earnings to Lululemon shareholders.

And speaking of multiples, who knew RIM would be down 16.8 per cent on the year, and trading at well under 10 times earnings, after revenue grew by 35 per cent, earnings by 45 per cent and the company bought back $2-billion worth of stock?

The year once again demonstrated how perverse and unpredictable financial markets are, and how lucky we are to be living where we do.

What's Buffett got against gold?

The Oracle of Omaha has become wealthy investing in undervalued companies that contribute valuable goods and services. Gold just sits there.


By InvestorPlace

Warren Buffett is an investing icon, and when he talks about the stock market, individual investors and Wall Street insiders alike take notice. Perhaps Buffett's most controversial investment advice regards gold prices. Gold bullion, gold miners and gold exchange-traded funds simply have no place in Warren Buffett's portfolio. And to hear Buffett tell it, gold should have no place in yours, either.

So what does Buffett have against gold? Well, the famous value investor has been pretty clear on this: Gold is, in a word, useless.

As early as 1998, the Oracle of Omaha was criticizing gold bugs. Buffett emphasized the nonproductive aspect of gold in a speech at Harvard that included this gem:

"(Gold) gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."

He echoed these thoughts last year during an appearance on CNBC, when he was asked, "Where do you think gold will be in five years, and should that be a part of value investing?"

Buffett's answer: "I have no views as to where it will be, but the one thing I can tell you is it won't do anything between now and then except look at you. Whereas, you know, Coca-Cola (KO, news, msgs) will be making money, and I think Wells Fargo (WFC, news, msgs) will be making a lot of money and . . . it's a lot better to have a goose that keeps laying eggs than a goose that just sits there and eats insurance and storage and a few things like that."

Buffett struck a similar vein last month in an interview with Fortune.

"You could take all the gold that's ever been mined, and it would fill a cube 67 feet in each direction. For what that's worth at current gold prices, you could buy all -- not some -- all of the farmland in the United States," Buffett said. "Plus, you could buy 10 Exxon Mobils (XOM, news, msgs), plus have $1 trillion of walking-around money. Or you could have a big cube of metal. Which would you take? Which is going to produce more value?"

He has certainly stayed on message over the years. Key talking points for Buffett appear to be that gold is expensive to store, has no practical use and doesn't generate and income. Those are all pretty good reasons to hate gold.

For investors who think Buffett is wrong on gold, though, there are several ways to invest in the yellow stuff.

One of the most popular is through exchange-traded funds that operate as gold trusts – including SPDR Gold Shares (GLD, news, msgs) and iShares Gold Trust (IAU, news, msgs). These investments mirror the price of gold bullion and are a pure play on the metal, as opposed to investments in the shares of companies that mine gold.

What's more, these ETFs allow you to buy gold without worrying about the logistics of storing it or insuring it in your own home. The SPDR and iShares gold ETFs recently have exploded not just in popularity, but also in price, with the IAU and GLD ETFs both up about 23% so far this year, significantly outperforming the broader stock market.

In 1998, the year that Buffett made his remarks at Harvard, gold averaged around $300 an ounce, meaning that anyone who bought an ounce of the precious metal back then would now be sitting on a return of 400%.

Shares of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A, news, msgs), on the other hand, have appreciated about 140% since early 1998. That's significantly better than the broader market, but it doesn't come close to gold's advance.

In the short term, the results are varied. Gold prices are up about 53% since Buffett's March 2009 interview with CNBC, while Berkshire Hathaway stock has notched a 63% gain over the same period. Since the Fortune piece was published, gold has risen about 6%, while Berkshire Hathaway has sustained a small decline.

It's hard to tell what the future holds for gold, but one thing seems certain: Buffett will sit out the gold rush.

This article was reported by Jeff Reeves for InvestorPlace.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/MutualFunds/what-has-buffett-got-against-gold.aspx

How can a financial planner help me?

Financial planners offer advice on a wide range of financial topics. In most cases, you will pay either a flat fee or an hourly fee to work with a financial planner.

How can a financial planner help me?

A financial planner will show you how to:

  • Set realistic goals and take steps to achieve them
  • Decide what type of insurance you need
  • Save for your children’s education and training
  • Plan and save for retirement
  • Build an estate to leave to your family or for other worthy causes
  • Save and invest in smart ways that reduce your taxes

What will I talk about with a financial planner?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investor-education/chapter-2-what-does-a-financial-planner-do/article878954/

Thursday, 23 December 2010

KNM’s orderbook balloons to above RM4 billion


KNM’s orderbook balloons to above RM4 billion

by Jonathan Chia jonathanchia@theborneopost.com. Posted on December 23, 2010, Thursday
KUCHING: KNM Group Bhd’s (KNM) orderbook of above RM4 billion should be able to keep the company busy for the next two years. The company’s current tenderbook stands at more than RM16 billion.
BIOMASS ENERGY GENERATION PLANT: KNM recently announced that its 100 per cent subsidiary KPS, has entered into an EPC contract to generate energy from biomass and a waste recycling centre known as ‘EnergyPark Peterborough’ in Peterborough, the UK. — Photo by Agragas, Inc
KNM recently announced that its 100 per cent subsidiary KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd (KPS), had entered into an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract towards the development of a plant with gross capacity of approximately 80 megawatts (MW) to generate energy from biomass and a waste recycling centre known as ‘EnergyPark Peterborough’ in Peterborough, the UK.
The contract from Peterborough Renewable Energy Ltd (PREL), valued at £450 million (RM2.2 billion) would cover the duration of about four years starting from the commencement date which was yet to be determined.
“We gather that the amount would likely be equally spread over the four-year period, which would amount to about RM500 million a year.
“We also understand that this EPC project includes the structural construction, which would likely be carried out by a third party, the gross margin expected to be more than 20 per cent and although the commencement date is yet to be determined, there is no risk to KNM as we understand that the deposit received by the company is enough to cover the cost of initial material to be purchased,” said OSK Research Sdn Bhd’s (OSK Research) analyst, Jason Yap.
Yap noted that there was no change to KNM’s financial year 2010 (FY10) to financial year 2011 (FY11) earnings.
“This is because we had earlier assumed some orderbook replenishment for the company based on the success rate guidance from its management,” he added.
Given the positive investor sentiment on the stock, he believed there would be more upside to its share price since this stock was traditionally driven by positive news flow such as contract announcements.
Hence, OSK Research was upgrading its target price for the company to RM3.45 per share, which was based on a higher price earnings ratio (PER) of 14 times FY11 earnings per share (EPS).
“Our valuation is slightly higher than the current industry average of 13 times because we believe that at the rate the share prices of most oil and gas (O&G) companies are performing, we think that the industry average would soon catch up to 14 times.
“As for KNM, we believe its share price would react positively to this big one-off contract in the short term,” Yap said.
However, as for the longer term sustainability of its share price, he believed that investors would need more assurance in the form of continuous contracts flow, on which he was still not entirely certain since the global O&G industry had not fully recovered in the past 12 months although crude oil prices had stabilised at about US$80 per barrel.
Yap noted that KNM was a global O&G process equipment company, which made its business dependent on the health of the global economy and not Malaysia alone.

Padini plans more stores

By June Ramlee
Published: 2010/12/23

However, Padini is concerned about the labour shortage and the inability of getting Malaysians to work in the retail sector


PADINI Holdings Bhd (7052)plans to open more Brands Outlet stores, which sells cheaper value brands, in 2011 but it is worried about a local labour shortage for the retail industry.

"What concerns me is the labour shortage and the inability of getting locals to work in the retail sector and make it a career that not many people are willing to invest their lives in," executive chairman Chan Kwai Heng said.

This is why Padini's expansion plans in Sabah and Sarawak has suffered a setback as there were not many capable people who could do the job.

"Between Sabah and Sarawak we have three stores ... we want to expand more here but we are looking for the right person who can handle the retailing side of the business," he added.

The company now has 12 Brands Outlet stores nationwide.

"We are going to expand the Brands Outlet store to many states in Malaysia but we are not sure of the number yet," he added.

Padini's revenue grew 9.5 per cent to RM520.9 million in 2010 over RM475.5 million in 2009.

Its most profitable business was women's footwear Vincci which garnered a revenue of RM173.2 million compared with RM160.3 million the previous year.

Chan said the group doesn't plan to expand its brand presence overseas as it still has a lot of room to grow within the country.

"The Economic Transformation Plan (ETP) report says that in 2009 the apparel and footwear industry in Malaysia was worth RM13 billion. Now our revenue is only at RM520.9 million, so we still have a lot of room to grow here," he said.

He is also not worried about the rise in cotton prices due to bad weather as it could lock in prices earlier through the futures market.

Padini expects a single-digit growth for the fashion industry next year as there are not many big events to help push sales.

"There is no Visit Malaysia Year next year, but I am very interested in the ETP ... if it works, then it will be good for the industry," he added.


Read more: Padini plans more stores http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/jrpadini/Article/index_html#ixzz18vTicDGR

Pheim, CEO appeal on stock-rigging case




Pheim Asset Management Sdn Bhd and its Chief Executive Officer Tan Chong Koay, appealed a Singapore High Court ruling that they’d manipulated the shares of a listed company in the country’s first civil stock-rigging lawsuit.

“If left to stand, the decision would either serve to curtail genuine market activity by the timorous or to set a penal trap for the unwary,” they said in their appeal filed Dec 21 at the Singapore High Court.

Tan and Pheim bought almost 90 per cent of the traded shares of United Envirotech Ltd. from Dec 29 to Dec 31, 2004. The shares rose 17 per cent over the three trading days and helped raise the net asset value of the fund management firm’s accounts, triggering bonuses of S$50,790 ($38,866) and a management fee of S$115. Justice Lai Siu Chiu said the gain sought by Pheim and Tan wasn’t monetary, in ruling they manipulated the stock.

Tan and his Malaysian fund management company were fined S$250,000 each. The Monetary Authority of Singapore sought a fine of S$1 million for each.


Pheim “is a value investor,” the company and Tan said in their appeal. “Pheim is also a contrarian investor -- buying when others are selling and selling when others are buying.”

The Monetary Authority has no evidence to prove Pheim and Tan had any other intention but to buy undervalued shares, they said in the 212 pages of court documents filed to back the appeal.

“There was in fact no other intention,” they said.

‘Good Investment’

Pheim expected shares of companies in the water treatment sector to rise since 2001, according to the filing. United Envirotech shares were overlooked and deemed to be a good investment, Pheim said in its appeal.

Singapore, which expanded its fund management industry to a record S$1.2 trillion at the end of 2009, has vowed to clamp down on market abuse. The central bank, which won the city’s first civil lawsuits for stock rigging and insider trading this year tightened the rules for financial institutions in reporting employee misconduct.

“Such offenses undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of the securities market and are often insidious and difficult to detect,” Lai said.

Tan, who founded Pheim Group, was in 2002 named one of five successful Singapore-based boutique fund managers by the Government of Singapore Investment Corp..

Tan has offices in Singapore and Malaysia. He had said, jokingly, in August 2006 that Pheim, which manages about $1 billion, was a made-up word which means Please Help Everyone Invest Money.

Tan and Pheim “would not have risked their livelihood and business by seeking to manipulate” the stock knowing that any unusual trading activities would be tracked by the financial regulator, according to their appeal.

The case is Pheim Asset Management Sdn Bhd v Monetary Authority of Singapore, CA186/2010 in the Singapore High Court. - Bloomberg

Read more: Pheim, CEO appeal on stock-rigging case http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/20101223112041/Article/index_html#ixzz18vQHvfh9